# A debate on where America was before Trump. Were we really in decline? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 22, 2020, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-where-america-was-before-trump-were-we-really-in-decline/928648 "2020-12-22T14:56:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2021, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-where-america-was-before-trump-were-we-really-in-decline/928648/201 "2021-01-03T15:10:52Z")
Agreed - but are these on the increase as a percent of population or are they the outliers? ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2021, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-where-america-was-before-trump-were-we-really-in-decline/928648/202 "2021-01-03T15:13:26Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > but are these on the increase as a percent of population or are they the outliers? This is an interesting question. We would need some way to measure creative output. Seems like something that people would have studied, but I’m not even sure what to search for. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2021, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-where-america-was-before-trump-were-we-really-in-decline/928648/203 "2021-01-03T15:16:03Z")
It’s gotta be increasing, since it was essentially 0% until recently, no? How many people knew how to publish VHS / DVDs / get a broadcast slot? ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2021, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-where-america-was-before-trump-were-we-really-in-decline/928648/204 "2021-01-03T15:21:44Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > And agreed - plenty of crap gets published anyhow, so this idea that you can’t publish anything that goes against consensus is ridiculous. The entire point of my comment was to say this is a strawman. It’s very easy to argue against a claim you just made up. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2021, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-where-america-was-before-trump-were-we-really-in-decline/928648/205 "2021-01-03T15:21:50Z")
That’s not a question I’d care to answer without a deep look at the stats, but I think it is a good one. Some factors to consider: What year are we comparing today to? What proportion of the population worked in “content creation” at each point? How much smaller, on average, are the teams producing high quality YouTube shows, compared to the teams that ran channels like Discovery in their prime? How do we measure and compare overall quality in each field of content, and how heavily do we weigh quality vs quantity? Finally - YouTube is based in America, and American culture is dominant there. But many of the content creators, even ones who are popular in America, are from abroad. So how does that fit in with the idea of America’s rise or fall as a cultural giant? My subjective impression as a consumer is that there is much, much more variety out there today thanks to the Internet; that in the fields I’m interested in, traditional American media has decayed to the point where it is quite useless (because a ghost hunting reality show is cheaper to produce than a well researched documentary and gets better ratings) while foreign programming, like the BBC, remains strong. But that’s my limited view on a small section of “media”, so I would be very interested in a real study looking into these questions. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2021, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-where-america-was-before-trump-were-we-really-in-decline/928648/206 "2021-01-03T15:24:31Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > It’s gotta be increasing, since it was essentially 0% until recently, no? > How many people knew how to publish VHS / DVDs / get a broadcast slot? It depends on what you mean by Content Creator. Who are the content creators on Mythbusters? Adam and Jamie? The other supporting cast members? Or all of the hundreds of people that write, film, direct, produce, etc? A YouTube channel could produce all of its content through the work of one individual, or a small handful. Often they film, edit, etc themselves, at least until they get big enough to hire help. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2021, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-where-america-was-before-trump-were-we-really-in-decline/928648/207 "2021-01-03T15:27:44Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > And agreed - plenty of crap gets published anyhow, so this idea that you can’t publish anything that goes against consensus is ridiculous. > [@DemonTree](#): > > The entire point of my comment was to say this is a strawman. It’s very easy to argue against a claim you just made up. 🤔 Yes, your argument: > [@DemonTree](#): > > No, that is not my argument. My argument is that most people will choose not to risk doing research that draws this kind of outraged reaction, and they will choose not to publish opinions that are likely to get them fired. I don’t think that is particularly contentious. The argument you still haven’t provided any evidence for whatsoever? As noted before, > [@Babale](#): > > You have not shown any evidence that a study that goes against scientific consensus, if it is backed by solid data and well reasoned analysis, would be met with “this kind of outraged reaction”. You HAVE shown that when people make regressive claims based on poor science, other scientists complain. > [@DemonTree](#): > > It’s very easy to argue against a claim you just made up. It’s very easy to argue against a claim I didn’t make by taking one line of a post that wasn’t even directed at you or your argument out of context; kudos. Care to address my other posts? ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2021, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-where-america-was-before-trump-were-we-really-in-decline/928648/208 "2021-01-03T16:10:32Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > A YouTube channel could produce all of its content through the work of one individual, or a small handful. Often they film, edit, etc themselves, at least until they get big enough to hire help. Sure but I don’t see how this speaks to the point I was making. My point was simply prior to the youTube era it was exceedingly hard to produce and distribute this kind of content. So even if the number of people creating such content is small, it would be pretty hard to claim that it is declining or static, which was the original point I was arguing against and the question that [Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane) asked. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2021, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-where-america-was-before-trump-were-we-really-in-decline/928648/209 "2021-01-03T16:16:23Z")
> [@survinga](#): > > Climate Change - Any retrofitting of our electrical system, of our energy grid, should disproportionately benefit rural areas, providing good high-paying jobs in construction & renewable energy. I would argue the target should be the most inefficient, weakest, and least capable to support its needs. Though rural areas do strike high on those lists. > [@survinga](#): > > Healthcare Jobs - We need more doctors, hospitals, and medical facilities in rural areas. Let’s incentivize schools to train more doctors for rural practices, and make it worth their while to practice in rural areas. I agree. Rural healthcare access is much more limited than urban. > [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > I just don’t know how to do an economic outreach to people whose main concern is staying out of last place but not investing any competitive effort to do so. So you’re saying rural whites are lazy, as a class? > [@octopus](#): > > What is good is to build more housing. True. But what is controlling the amount of housing is the geography _and_ the people with the wealth controlling the type of housing to prevent higher-density living systems with lower cost access points. The geography is set. The economic inequality drives the second. > [@Tamerlane](#): > > No one (or very, very few) owning a single-family home in SF are going to consider rebuilding it as apartments. It’s value is as a single-family home which the well-heeled will pay a premium for - in Nov, 2020 the average cost was $1.625 million. Which quickly prices it out of range from a city government program. Even if the government could buy them on the open market, SF has the 3rd smallest average home lot sizes in the US (those space constraints again) - 2,713 sq. ft… It’s not terribly cost efficient to buy random lots that size and try to build skinny needle high-rises on them. That’s assuming the government acquires the political capital necessary to change zoning laws to allow such things in a residential neighborhood. Yes, that is a legitimate obstacle. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2021, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-where-america-was-before-trump-were-we-really-in-decline/928648/210 "2021-01-03T16:18:50Z")
I agree with you that I suspect the proportion is higher now. But if you count everyone working on the show (454 cast members on Mythbusters according to IMDB - let’s assume that at any given time 150 worked on the show) as content creators, then it could take 150 youtube channels to match Mythbusters in terms of how many people they employ in the content creation industry. I do agree that a more reasonable count is 6 (Adam, Jamie, and the less prominent cast - I forgotten term used on the show) but my point is that it’s something to consider. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2021, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-where-america-was-before-trump-were-we-really-in-decline/928648/211 "2021-01-03T16:35:48Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > My point was simply prior to the youTube era it was exceedingly hard to produce and distribute this kind of content. I think “and distribute” is key here. There is a far lower barrier for an individual or small group to get their work out there. And the technology to edit audio and video is more accessible today. That mean less editorial oversight over what gets distributed. So maybe that lowers the average quality? But also increases the overall volume of quality content? And how much any of that says about America is tricky, as was already pointed out. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2021, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-where-america-was-before-trump-were-we-really-in-decline/928648/212 "2021-01-03T16:39:26Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > And how much any of that says about America is tricky, as was already pointed out Indeed, but it IS very interesting, so if someone spins off another thread, I’d participate! ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2021, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-where-america-was-before-trump-were-we-really-in-decline/928648/213 "2021-01-03T16:48:49Z")
I see **Babale** and others finding that the paper was not the great example **DemonTree** thought it was, even conservatives out there can figure out that one of the main premises of the paper was wrong any how. Diversity does save lives unlike the conclusion the author of the retracted paper wanted to reach. > **[Diversity in Medicine Saves Lives | RealClearEducation](https://www.realcleareducation.com/articles/2018/07/31/diversity_in_medicine_saves_lives_110290.html)** > > Diversity in the doctors office literally saves lives. > Thats the finding of a recent study from Harvard. Researchers at the T.H. Chan School of Public Health examined outcomes for over 1.2... BTW I did check, the study the conservative outfit talks about here, is a different and with more medical workers involved than the one the writer of the flawed paper attempted to dismiss. It is no wonder that others report that the apparent consensus was reached not because of a hive mind, but because the evidence is for it. > **[Diversity In Healthcare Can Save Lives](https://www.kunr.org/public-health/2019-12-18/diversity-in-healthcare-can-save-lives)** > > Time and again, research has shown that increased diversity is beneficial to society and the world. In nature, biodiversity is essential for the survival… ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2021, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-where-america-was-before-trump-were-we-really-in-decline/928648/214 "2021-01-03T16:56:33Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Indeed, but it IS very interesting, so if someone spins off another thread, I’d participate! I’m not confident in my ability to construct a coherent OP on arts topics. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2021, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-where-america-was-before-trump-were-we-really-in-decline/928648/215 "2021-01-03T16:59:40Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I see **Babale** and others finding that the paper was not the great example **DemonTree** thought it was, even conservatives out there can figure out that one of the main premises of the paper was wrong any how. Diversity does save lives unlike the conclusion the author of the retracted paper wanted to reach. That’s fine. I didn’t post the example to say that the dude was correct - it’s basically an opinion piece anyway. It was to show the consequences of publishing something that goes against the ‘progressive consensus’. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2021, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-where-america-was-before-trump-were-we-really-in-decline/928648/216 "2021-01-03T17:04:19Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > YouTube, for one. Small content creators making videos in their office or garage often make crap; but some portion of them does create very high quality content. > > For example, I’m into the Science and History videos, and I am very confident when I say, scientific and historical programming has far surpassed in quality AND quantity the programming of channels like History or Discovery in their prime (IE before Ancient Aliens!) I do agree, on the whole I think this is for the best, but one should not forget about Sturgeon’s law, “ninety percent of everything is crap.” I can say that I do seek the best out there, however, many do fall for the trash that is also out there. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2021, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-where-america-was-before-trump-were-we-really-in-decline/928648/217 "2021-01-03T17:07:45Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > It was to show the consequences of publishing something that goes against the ‘progressive consensus’. You showed that there are negative consequences to publishing crap. You did not show that there are negative consequences to publishing something that goes against the ‘progressive consensus’ but is not crap. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2021, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-where-america-was-before-trump-were-we-really-in-decline/928648/218 "2021-01-03T17:23:18Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > So you’re saying rural whites are lazy, as a class? Nope. Re-read for comprehension. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2021, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-where-america-was-before-trump-were-we-really-in-decline/928648/219 "2021-01-03T17:51:44Z")
Thanks for the replies re: culture—food for thought against my anecdatum. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2021, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-where-america-was-before-trump-were-we-really-in-decline/928648/220 "2021-01-03T17:58:00Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > You showed that there are negative consequences to publishing crap. You did not show that there are negative consequences to publishing something that goes against the ‘progressive consensus’ but is not crap. It wasn’t crap. From the first article: > Roberta Sinatra, a scholar at the IT University of Copenhagen, uses big data to study publication, citation, mentorship, and success in science. She says that the methods used in the study, although flawed, are fairly standard in this field. The lack of gender information is a limitation of the dataset, but the algorithms are about 80 percent accurate, and questions about gender bias couldn’t begin to be addressed without this approach, she says. She commends the researchers for taking the extra step to do a survey to confirm that the authorship patterns do in fact reflect some measure of mentorship, but suggests that “chaperone,” rather than “mentor,” could be a more apt description of that relationship. Sinatra herself used that term in a [2018 study](https://www.pnas.org/content/115/50/12603.short?rss%3D1) on publishing in high impact journals because, she says, the authorship patterns don’t reveal anything about the quality of mentorship. > > ## Citations as success > > “Overall, it’s a very thorough and comprehensive analysis,” Sinatra says, adding that she felt some of the methodological criticisms were unfair because the approaches are fairly standard in the field known as the science of science. But she agrees with critics who say the researchers should have been more careful in their interpretation of the results. “The interpretation starts from the idea that scientists have to achieve a higher number of citations. I think that is not a good starting point,” she says. “The idea that the goal of mentorship is to maximize the impact of citations later in a protégé’s career is a very shaky target.” The study was fine, it was only the interpretation they made of the results that was dubious. But people made unfair criticisms of the methodology anyway out of a desire to discredit it. That’s not the right way to do science. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-where-america-was-before-trump-were-we-really-in-decline/928648.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-debate-on-where-america-was-before-trump-were-we-really-in-decline/928648.md?page=12)